Posted on 08/17/2011 11:45:17 AM PDT by rxsid
"Tea party exploring Obama's eligibility
Arizona event focuses on evidence behind dispute
An event scheduled in Arizona is reflecting a new consideration by tea party components of the real evidence behind Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
...
But the general wave of conservative positions endorsed by tea party officials largely has excluded the eligibility issue. Until now.
The Liberty Through Action organization has scheduled a meeting tonight with Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and author of Where's the Birth Certificate?"
The event at the Sun City West Foundation Building in Sun City West at 6:30 p.m. is to focus on the issues of being a dual citizen, what is a "natural born Citizen," the mystery of the birth location, missing documents in the hunt for evidence, whether Obama's residency in Indonesia is a factor, the court challenges, the stonewalling of evidence in Hawaii, and ultimately, what does it mean for 2012.
"The speech represents a real movement of the tea party to engage in the eligibility issue. I plan to explain the evidence presented in 'Where's the Birth Certificate?' and to demonstrate with my computer the 20 or so experts WND has published saying the Obama birth certificate is fake," Corsi explained.
...
"
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=334705
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
the question will be, “will obama be able to prove he is eligible for the 2012 ballot...”
i guess that is why he estimates he’ll need a billion dollars to run a successful campaign.
do we have any state attorneys that will man up..
teeman...
I'm not even sure you can call this a Tea Party Group. Where are you getting your information about them? The link WND provided doesn't say anything.
That is NOT a donkey.
It’s everything. Not “just” this or that, but everything. His entire “life” is a myth.
plmk
What? Did the Founders just pull their definition of natural-born citizen out of their asses?
Of course not, the lawyers in the colonies of the day were either trained in England, or universities in the colonies, OR they read for the law under a colonist who was a lawyer. IN ANY CASE, they were trained in English Common and English Statute Law.
When the Founders came up with the phrase, natural-born citizen, they applied their knowledge of said law to come up with their definition. They ALSO examined the writings of Grotius and Vattel as well in order to arrive at their conclusion.
*****
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
If you bothered to REALLY read the passages I posted, you would have found the following:
"... For the constitution of kingdoms and states, ordinances of cities and commonweals, and the liberties and freedoms thereof, are not by nature, but come by the consent of men and mens laws."
*****
The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic."
The Rhodes case misinterpreted English Common Law. Firstly, naturalization granted all the legal rights of citizenship except political rights [e.g. holding office] and required an act of Parliament be passed. Alternatively, denization allowed a person to gain the rights of citizenship other than political rights. Denization was granted by letters patent, and was granted by the monarch as an exercise of royal prerogative. Denization was therefore an exercise of executive power, whereas naturalization was an exercise of legislative power.
To quote Blackstone:
"... A DENIZEN is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an lien may not; but cannot take by inheritancee: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burthens. And no denizen can be of the Privy Council, or either House of Parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown."
NATURALIZATION cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament ..."
THEREFORE, with such recognition, as you quoted in Rhodes, a naturalized citizen WOULD NOT be eligible to be President of the United States.
But here we are going on nearly 4 months---and counting---since President Obama released his long form Hawaii birth certificate on April 27, 2011, and still not a single word from Kapiolani officials that yes, President Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961.
Why won't President Obama give Kapiolani hospital officials permission to let reporters examine his birth records, and why have Kapiolani officals continued to go into hiding when it comes to the subject of whether or not Obama was born at Kapiolani hospital as President Obama claims?
Could the answer be this simple: Obama was NOT born at Kapiolani hospital as he claims, which means that there are no Obama birth records to examine?
Obama very vulnerable and weak now? With President Obama's approval ratings are going down every day, so he is in a very vulnerable and weak state right now. This would be a great time to go after him by putting constant pressure on him to finally respond to the following Obama controversies, controversies that President Obama has cleverly avoided over the past almost 3 years as President:
1. Why don't you let Kapiolani officials let reporters examine your Aug. 4, 1961, birth records? What are you hiding?
2. Connecticut social security number issue: How come you have a Social Security number that refers to Connecticut, when you were a teenager living in Hawaii when the number was issued in the 1970s?
3. Why don't you give Social Security permission to release your 1970s application form so that you can clear up the public's suspicions concerning the Connecticut number?
4. Occidental college record: Why won't you let reporters examine your Occidental and Columbia records? What are you hiding?
5. Original long form birth certificate: Why won't you let reporters examine your original long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives, when you have already released copies of the original to the world on April 27, 2011? What are you hiding?
Yes, Obama is very vulnerable right now as the economy is weakening and he cannot depend on an adoring public to protect him from criticism anymore, because frustrated and desperate voters want answers to their financial hardships from their elected leader, President Obama, a leader who more voters, with each passing day, are starting to look at more closely and wonder if President Obama has been telling them the truth about his past all these years.
Yes, President Obama is in a very vulnerable and weak position right now, so it is a great time to go after him to force him to answer questions about his past that he has skillfully avoided all these years from his time as Senator to his almost 3 years as President of the United States.
I can’t disagree with that.
I've been reading these threads long enough to know that this wouldn't slow down the "birther nation." The response would be along the lines of "they had three years to concoct something," followed by, "it doesn't even matter where he was born, because his father was from Africa."
So you think NBC means, ‘half-foreign’?
Here’s something to consider:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2764390/posts?page=103#103
About time.
About time.
Geez. Don't be ridiculous, cause yeah..that's EXACTLY what I think.
They got the definition from the very source DR. Franklin said:
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel, It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own publick library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts-Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.
It was right there, in that very source that they read and referenced during the Constitutional convention as well.
When they wrote the Deceleration of Independence, the founders were not moving CLOSER to English law or even EMBRACING it, the were moving FURTHER from it. They were CUTTING their ties to the English and their crown. The Declaration of Independence was the BEGINNING of the founders moving AWAY from the British form of Monarchical government and TOWARDS a Constitutional Republic SIMILAR to those described in Law of Nations and natural law.
Again, had they EMBRACED English law, the would NEVER have been able to declare independence...for English law FORBID IT. HOWEVER, Law of Nations ACKNOWLEDGE that right (to quit one's nation). They used NATURAL LAW to break free from the English. They furthered their embrace of natural law by creating a Constitutional Republic form of government that more closely resembles the concepts found in Law of Nations....and looked far less like the English Monarchy.
If the founders really believed "natural born Citizen" = "natural born Subject", there would have been ZERO need for them to include a "grandfather" clause in the the requirement because THEY (save for Hamilton) would have been "natural born Citizens" as well.
This is self evident.
There was zero need for them to have to contort and morph the concept of a natural born Subject (which the English ADOPTED and MORPHED into their own, from ancient ROME) into that of a natural born Citizen...when a natural born Citizen was ALREADY defined for them in the source they relied on "when raising a state" as Dr. Franklin tells us.
I believe a natural born citizen is someone born within the territory of the United States, or to citizens temporarily traveling abroad. This is not a controversial position among legal scholars.
The fact that you and others believe strongly that this isn't true only supports the point I was making above.
So you believe the NBC requirement was inserted in the Constitution to safeguard the rights of foreign enemies of the USA to spawn our presidents?
I guess that you are not getting my point.
Whether the Founders took a strict interpretation from a single source - English Common Law, English Common Law, Grotius, Vattel, etc. OR some combination thereof is NOT relevant.
My point is that Calvin’s Case [which people point to as legitimacy for Obama as NBC] was WRONG ...
There was NO English statute that stated any child born in England was natural-born [save the exceptions previously noted]. And, I have provided proof of that vis-a-vis the passages from Parliament.
The Founders would have known that AND would have known that a man CANNOT serve two masters at the same time.
Consequently, due to the British Nationality Act of 1728, the Founders would have realized that a child born to a natural-born English subject COULD NEVER be considered NBC.
I don't think any requirement alone could completely safeguard us against those who might use the office to harm the United States. The birther-supported "two citizen parents" definition certainly doesn't.
Your post makes no sense. If the NBC requirement of the Constitution was inserted to insure the POTUS would have two citizen parents, then it most assuredly precludes a foreign enemy of the US fathering our president. If you can’t see that, you’re being willfully blind.
Or else you have construed NBC as a safeguard against discrimination. The Founders, fearing we might be prejudiced against foreigners who want to destroy our Republic, inserted it to mandate that any foreigner, however hostile to the US and bent on our destruction, should have his right to father our president enshrined forever in the Constitution.
Get real.
No, because he could become a citizen first.
You’re sounding increasingly deranged. To illustrate, take this example. The Founders are envisioning future presidents, and one says, ‘What about King George?’
The others say, ‘What about him?’
‘What he if wants to sire a president?’
‘Would he be willing to leave England and become a US citizen?’
‘He wouldn’t have to. He could send for a wench and pound her like a loose nail. He could send her back to calve on US soil, bring the child to England and raise him as a good Royalist, and then send him back to run for POTUS.’
The others, being steeped in PC, cultural sensitivity and the evils of discrimination, grasp the point immediately. With sage nods, they craft the NBC requirement, enshrining in perpetuity the right of foreign enemies to father presidents.
Come on. That’s the kind of logic only Soros could embrace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.